Judgment :- 1. Heard Ms.R.Hemalatha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Government Advocate (Tax) appearing for the respondent. 2. An order of assessment dated 01.02.2013 made by the revisional authority, confirming the proposal dated 10.01.2013, is called in question by the petitioner, seeking to quash the same, as the order is contrary to the principles of assessment and passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 3. The brief facts of the case pleaded by the petitioner are as follows:- (a) The petitioner-Company is incorporated under the Companies Act and is registered as an assessee on the files of the respondent herein, bearing Registration under the erstwhile Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (for short, 'the TNGST Act') and the present Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (for short, 'the TNVAT Act') as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, 'the CST Act'). The Petitioner-Company claims that they are the leading manufacturers of Electrically Operated Overhead Factory Cranes and Hoists and various kinds of cranes manufactured by them are of different nature. These cranes are manufactured by the petitioner-company as per the specifications and requirements of each and every individual customer based upon their actual requirements at their work place and is confined specifically to the nature of activities carried out by them and the cranes are supplied mostly to the heavy industries. (b) The cranes that are being used as an integral aid or accessory in the process of manufacture, are to be construed firmly as machinery or parts/accessories of machineries that are used in the specific industries. From the time of petitioner's business inception, the cranes have been classified only under the caption of 'Machinery' and statutory clarifications issued under section 28-A of the TNGST Act, have also recognised cranes only as machineries as succinctly setforth in the entries to the schedule and the clarifications issued under Section 28-A of the TNGST Act. (c) There was a Field Audit conducted at the business premises of the petitioner-company by the officials of the Enforcement Wing from 18.11.2009 to 20.11.2009 and a statement was recorded from the Director of the petitioner-company on the alleged defects pointed out by the Audit officials. (c) There was a Field Audit conducted at the business premises of the petitioner-company by the officials of the Enforcement Wing from 18.11.2009 to 20.11.2009 and a statement was recorded from the Director of the petitioner-company on the alleged defects pointed out by the Audit officials. Originally, the respondent herein issued a revision notice proposing to revise the original assessment order under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, wholly on the premise of the findings recorded during the Field Audit conducted at the business premises of the petitioner-company and to the same, reply was furnished in the office of the respondent,which was duly acknowledged thereupon. (d) The respondent, for the very same cause of action, issued a series of notices, all dated 10.01.2013 for the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 under the TNVAT Act, and the notices were identical in the sense that they sought to lay emphasis on the alleged defects pointed out by the Audit officials on 20.11.2009. For the earlier proposal notice dated 15.06.2010, the petitioner has filed a reply on 28.06.2010, wherein the petitioner has stated that the commodity 'Cranes' under dispute had all along been treated as Machinery even under the erstwhile TNGST Act and therefore, it qualifies to fall under the substantive provision of Section 2(11) of the TNVAT Act, 2006. Instead of considering the reply, the respondent has now proceeded to issue notice and also confirmed the proposal. (e) A common reply letter, dated 19.01.2013 was issued by the petitioner, inter-alia seeking time up to 15.02.2013 to submit "C-Forms" on the said issue. Though the said reply did not address each specific year separately, a request was made seeking for time up to 15.02.2013. The respondent herein has passed the impugned order making a revision of assessment by his proceedings in TIN No.33962000431/2006-2007, dated 01.02.2013 and the same is challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the impugned revision of assessment is arbitrary and is passed without hearing the other side, before confirming the proposal and therefore, the respondent has committed violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. On the above background of pleadings, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the very same cause of action, which took place from 18.11.2009 to 20.11.2009, a statement was recorded from the petitioner on the alleged defects pointed out by the Audit Officials. 4. On the above background of pleadings, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the very same cause of action, which took place from 18.11.2009 to 20.11.2009, a statement was recorded from the petitioner on the alleged defects pointed out by the Audit Officials. The respondent issued a revision notice proposing to revise the original assessment order under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act. All of a sudden, the respondent proceeded further in issuing notice for the proposal of revision and the same is confirmed, without hearing the petitioner and therefore the respondent committed violation of the principles of natural justice. 5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Tax), on instructions from the respondent, submitted that the petitioner, without filing an objection to the notice of revision, only requested to adjourn the matter and has come before this Court, without availing of the effective alternative remedy and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material documents available on record. 7. It is seen that the petitioner is a Company engaged in the manufacture of Electrically Operated Overhead Factory Cranes and Hoists and they are registered under the TNGST, TNVAT and CST Acts. It is also seen that there was a Field Audit conducted by the respondent in the petitioner's business premises by the Enforcement Wing officials from 18.11.2009 to 20.11.2009 and statement was recorded from them, based on which, a revision notice was issued under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, and the petitioner replied on 28.06.2010, thereafter, they kept quiet and the respondent issued a notice for revision of assessment on 10.01.2013, for the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 under the TNVAT Act. The petitioner claims that this notice is only to the relief in respect of the Field Audit dated 20.11.2009, to which there was an earlier proposal notice, dated 15.06.2010, and they have filed reply on 28.06.2010, and for the very same purpose, the respondent has now proceeded with the present proposal of revision and proceeded further, by passing the impugned order, as there is no objection filed by the petitioner against the revision notice dated 10.01.2013. 8. 8. The order in question dated 01.02.2013, is passed based on the statement of the Director of the petitioner-company Thiru.G.Kaleeswaran, deposed on 20.11.2009 before the Audit officials and thereafter, an audit report dated 20.11.2009 was made. Four cheques amounting to Rs.7,19,746/-(in toto) were tendered by the petitioner on 20.11.2009 and to the present revision notice, dated 10.01.2013, the petitioner's/dealer's submitted reply dated 19.01.2013. The impugned order also indicated that an appeal against the same lies before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner(CT), Coimbatore within 30 days of receipt of the order. 9. A perusal of the impugned order reveals the total delay for the assessment period in question. After indicating the tax rate, tax due, penalty due and the interest due altogether, the balance amount of Rs.14,43,513/-is shown as tax due, with penalty of Rs.2,744/- and interest thereon at Rs.12,47,225/- and notices in Form-O for tax balance and Form RR for penalty and interest are also issued. The respondent has already issued a revision notice, dated 10.01.2013, containing all the above proposals, which was served on the petitioner/dealer on 17.01.2013. As there was no objection from the petitioner except a letter dated 19.01.2013 praying time upto 15.02.2013 to file 'C' Form, the respondent has passed the impugned order, confirming the proposals communicated in the revision notice, dated 10.01.2013 and the same is assailed by the petitioner on the ground that there was no opportunity of hearing and the objection filed by the petitioner for the previous proposal was not considered. Though this position has been controverted by the learned Government Advocate (Tax) appearing for the respondent, stating that the petitioner, in their letter dated 19.01.2013 requested only time for hearing up to 15.02.2013, nothing has been filed by the petitioner in the form of objections or reply to the revision notice, dated 10.01.2013. 10. To examine the validity of the impugned order, it is seen that when there is an effective alternative remedy of appeal is available against the impugned order, the present writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner raised a plea that when there was a proposal for revision of assessment, it is incumbent on the part of the respondent to provide an opportunity and the respondent has to take into account the earlier objection and the petitioner requested for extension of time. The petitioner raised a plea that when there was a proposal for revision of assessment, it is incumbent on the part of the respondent to provide an opportunity and the respondent has to take into account the earlier objection and the petitioner requested for extension of time. The respondent without considering the letter of the petitioner dated 19.01.2013, requesting them to give an opportunity, confirmed the proposal notice dated 10.01.2013, and passed the impugned order. The petitioner, without availing of the alternative remedy of appeal, has come before this Court on the ground that the respondent has committed violation of principles of the natural justice in passing the impugned order. The petitioner contended that the earlier objections filed by them for the very same cause of action which took place from 18.11.2009 to 20.11.2009 are material and the revision has been proposed for the very same purpose and the present proposal has been initiated by the respondent without considering the objections filed by the petitioner on the earlier occasion and the respondent proceeded further as if there is no objection from the petitioner. 11. In fact, the petitioner, though requested for extension of time, has not filed any objection till date. Therefore, there is no other option for the respondent, but to confirm the proposal, dated 10.01.2013 and hence, there is no error on the part of the respondent in passing impugned order, by taking into account that no objection was filed by the petitioner. 12. While the reason for not filing objections is one thing, giving an opportunity to the party to file his objections is another, which opportunity in this case is already given to the petitioner. In the interest of justice, if one more opportunity is given, the petitioner may put forth his plea in his objections, whereupon the respondent shall have every right to consider the same and decide the matter in accordance with law. 13. In the interest of justice, if one more opportunity is given, the petitioner may put forth his plea in his objections, whereupon the respondent shall have every right to consider the same and decide the matter in accordance with law. 13. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, this writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the petitioner to file their objections to the revision notice dated 10.01.2013, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and if such objections are filed, the respondent shall proceed further in the matter and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such objections. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.